Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an element of scaremongering occurring? There is no question of domestic customers being cut off this year. Things might be tight for industrial consumers, but in the longer term, will not new pipelines resolve the issue of gas supply?

Robert Key: I am very grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. Your earlier admonition gives a whole new meaning to "catching your eye".
	May I press the Secretary of State on nuclear energy? Does he share my view that public opinion is changing very rapidly and that the scaremongering of those opposed to nuclear energy is now receding? Does he further agree that, as people see their domestic energy bills rise sharply, and as their desire to see us meet Kyoto and beyond increases, they now understand that there is a serious debate to be had about the role of nuclear energy? After all, we are not that different from the French and in France, 83.4 per cent. of electricity is nuclear-generated.

Alan Johnson: —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) points out that the hon. Gentleman is first Conservative to admit that we are not that different from the French; however, I shall pass over that point. The hon. Gentleman is right. The public are aware of the issues and they are willing to engage in a constructive debate about them. I very much hope that we can have that debate. We need to ensure that we publish a White Paper that examines all the arguments and issues, such as waste, cost and renewable energy alternatives. If that is done properly, it will form the basis of a very constructive debate, regardless of the conclusion reached.

Alan Johnson: Our having only two or three days of gas supply is one of the myths being peddled. It does not take into account that very big storage tank called the North sea. All things being equal, we have some 77 days of gas supply that we can provide in the event of an emergency. I hope that we can reassure my hon. Friend's constituents that we are on top of this issue. There is no way that the Government could have been any better at predicting the need for the market to change, and nor is there any way that the public purse could have provided the £10 billion that the private sector is providing to ensure that we get the balance between supply and demand right. This will be a tight year if we are hit by very bad weather conditions, but after this year, we will get the balance absolutely right.

Alan Johnson: I disagree that there is a problem with the market approach to energy, as I think that it is working very well. After all, the Canadian Government caused a disaster when they decided to intervene in Montreal, and the recovery there is still going on. The hon. Gentleman talks about consensus, but first there needs to be consensus between the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). Then perhaps we will achieve consensus across the House.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. What is strong is the partnership with manufacturing industry involving initiatives such as the materials centre that we opened recently on the Isle of Wight, and also the fact that our manufacturing strategy is based on applying science and innovation, world-class practice, raising investment and a high level of skills. That all depends on high standards and good leadership in manufacturing industry, and leaders in that industry are acting as partners with us to tackle those issues, so our industry will be successful.

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to take history tutorials from my hon. Friend, but the fact is that if we are reviewing energy policy, it makes sense to look scientifically and objectively at the question of the future generation of nuclear energy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both said that we are nuclear-neutral at present. In other words, we approach the matter open-minded, but not empty- headed.

Edward Leigh: As the Minister has made clear, more than 5 million people pay for their gas or electricity with pre-payment meters, despite being some of the poorest people in the community. In March, the Public Accounts Committee found that on average they were paying a premium to the companies of £60 a year. That is unacceptable. What actions have the Government taken since our report was published to rectify the situation and how much has the premium reduced since that time?

David Taylor: One obvious problem with pre-payment cards, as well as disconnections which the Minister has just mentioned, is that if the card is not charged no fuel is supplied. A quarter or more pre-payment users self-disconnect in that way every year and a much higher proportion of them are gas users, which reflects the lower income profile of people forced into that position. Will the Minister tell us what he intends to do to tackle that problem?

Michael Weir: When asked about fuel poverty Ministers often make the point that consumers should consider switching suppliers, but that is difficult for people on pre-payment meters, which must be one of the few examples where people are penalised by paying cash in advance. Will the Minister look again at the matter to see if there is any way that the electricity and gas companies can be forced to give a better deal to those who have to pay through pre-payment meters? Most people do so because they have no alternative but to use such meters.

Brian Jenkins: That is the point. For a long time my hon. Friend was missing the point of the question. He talked about the market, but not about discrimination by companies against people who opt for pre-payment meters. On several occasions, Members on the Front Bench have defended the marketplace, and the openness of the marketplace, while Opposition Front Benchers and the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), call for more Government intervention and control. On what date did we switch places?

Malcolm Wicks: The short answer is yes. I am very interested in the concept of smart metering, particularly if it could tell householders how much CO 2 their dwellings are emitting and, with micro-generation in the dwelling, they could see the savings that they are making. I understand that there has been a roll-out of smart metering in Italy, so the European experience can be considered. We are discussing that option with Ofgem. The investment required would be expensive, but to repeat my short answer, yes, it is worth considering that option.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but his lead in is just a bit too long—he needs to be a bit sharper with his question. I think that the Minister has got the message.

Chris Grayling: Can the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Chris Grayling: Can the Leader of the House provide Members with an update on the Terrorism Bill? He will be aware that yesterday, after the Government's majority was reduced to one on the issue of indirect incitement, the Home Secretary asked for a delay in the vote on the 90-day detention plan. When will that vote to take place, and does he expect any further changes to the programming of the Terrorism Bill before next week?
	Last week, the Leader of the House failed to answer my question about why the Government have not yet followed the recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life to create an adviser on ministerial interests. Sir Alistair Graham has been highly critical of the Government on the subject, so when will the Leader of the House introduce proposals to that effect?
	Yesterday, many thousands of people came in the rain to lobby the House on trade, justice and poverty issues, and many expressed concern that those issues would not be made a priority at the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong in December. Given all that the Government have said in the past few months about development issues, may we have a statement from the Prime Minister before the Hong Kong talks so that he can brief the House about how Britain intends to push the agenda forward? May we also have a debate in Government time so that Members again have the opportunity to make their views heard on this vital issue?
	May we also have a debate on the sub judice rules and the Procedure Committee's report on those rules? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issues are sensitive. They have been raised a number of times in the House in the past few weeks by right hon. and hon. Members and they need to be resolved. Without resolution, they are constraining many of the activities of some of our Committees.
	When will the House see a copy of the proposed legislation on terrorists on the run in Northern Ireland? I understand that the Government have already shown those proposals to Sinn Fein. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that Members who have not taken up their seats should see proposed legislation before those who have?
	We are now into November and the Government have still provided no further information about either the date of the pre-Budget report or the proposed dates for the parliamentary year. Neither of those are sensitive issues, so why the delay?

Geoff Hoon: Given the detailed debates that took place yesterday on the Terrorism Bill and which will again take place later when we reach the main business, I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that there is not enough opportunity to discuss these matters. I have already mentioned that there will be two further days of debate next week, so I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will continue his determined efforts to ensure that we have an effective measure for dealing with the terrorist threat in the United Kingdom, one that, incidentally, commands the very strong support of most people in this country.
	We have a ministerial code—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members are scoffing, because I was about to make the point that that code has been applied by successive Prime Ministers, the majority of which have been Conservative ones, and it is thus important to emphasise that this is a matter for the Prime Minister—a matter that he takes extraordinarily seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issues of trade, justice and poverty. I saw the long lines of people who came to Westminster yesterday to lobby. This is an important issue for people throughout the country, and I am delighted that the Government have responded in the way that they have, by leading the way around the world in ensuring that these matters are taken seriously; and in our meetings of the G8, the EU and other international bodies we are the leaders in putting these issues firmly, squarely and fairly before the international community.
	The important issue of sub judice will obviously be subject to further consideration. We have had a report, but I understood from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that it was contemplating looking at the matter again, so obviously it is important that we continue to ensure, as I have said to the House before, that we do not make comments or statements that can affect court proceedings, subject of course to the importance of right hon. and hon. Members being able to raise these matters.
	The Bill dealing with so-called on-the-runs will be published shortly, as will the parliamentary calendar and the date of the pre-Budget report.
	May I just raise one matter with the hon. Gentleman? I have seen that he has been dubbed in some newspapers as the jackal. As someone who in the past has been the victim of the sketch writers, may I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman? I say that because I took the trouble to look up the definition of a jackal, and it was described as a medium-sized, opportunistic scavenger with dog-like features and large ears. I offer my sympathies to the hon. Gentleman about that rather unkind and totally unfair comparison.

Geoff Hoon: I repeat what I have said about the ministerial code—it exists to govern the conduct of Ministers during and after their period of office. It is vitally important that it command confidence, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the matter so seriously.
	As far as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is concerned, if there are difficulties about the timing of any stage of the process, I anticipate that they will be raised through the usual channels and considered appropriately.
	On council tax funding, a Second Reading debate is taking place on Monday. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman needs a statement on top of that, because I am sure that he is capable of raising the issue. In the light of last year's experience, the LGA announcement is probably an opening bid. I checked last year's opening bid—the hon. Gentleman might like to do the same—which involved the same kind of comments about the need for a large increase in council tax, although interestingly that was not the final result. We are seeing a carefully calculated effort to impress the Government, but I anticipate that the final result will be very different from the LGA's opening position.
	I have nothing to add to my earlier comments about trade justice, which is important, and I am delighted that so many people made their concerns known. The Government strongly support trade justice.

Mark Lancaster: Can the Leader of the House find time to debate early-day motion 385?
	[That this House recommends that glasses and bottles should be changed to plastic in late night bars and clubs.]
	That follows the vicious attack on my constituent, Blake Golding, in January. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support measures that help to curb antisocial behaviour.

Brian Iddon: The disengagement plan that the Israelis implemented in Gaza has caused more problems than it has solved, and Israel is being very provocative over its handling of affairs in Jerusalem. Iran's provocative statements about Israel are also causing problems, and Iraq and Afghanistan are giving rise to many concerns among Members. When can we have the long-promised debate on affairs in the middle east?

Eric Forth: May we have an urgent debate on the ministerial code, which is allegedly written and policed by the Prime Minister? Is not it the case that, sadly, yesterday's resignation by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was brought about by a combination of political pressure and withdrawal of support from Labour Back Benchers? How is it that everybody else can see what the Prime Minister is unable to perceive—that integrity and honesty in government and in politics are important? If the ministerial code is to mean anything, we should take it away from the Prime Minister and give it someone who knows what decency and integrity really mean.

George Young: What has happened to the Government's Bill on smoking, which was published last month, but which, to judge by the business statement, is not going to be seen in a public place for some time? Would it not assist the passage of that important piece of legislation if the Government were to allow a free vote on the various options supported by the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues?

Stephen McCabe: Can we have an early debate on the responsibilities that local authorities should observe when drawing up a contaminated land register? This is affecting several hundred of my constituents in the Bach Mill Drive area of Billesley. Birmingham city council identified the land there as contaminated, then sold it to property developers to build houses on. My constituents now face years of litigation, at taxpayers expense, while the value of their property goes through the floor. Surely it cannot be right that the city council can identify land that it owns as contaminated, then sit as judge and jury on the outcome. Surely that is unjust.

Geoff Hoon: It is important that we consider the importance of agriculture and the provision of food in our supermarkets. However, one of the issues that inevitably arises in relation to large supermarkets is the determination of most careful consumers in the United Kingdom to pay as little as they possibly can for their food. That undoubtedly drives the practices of the supermarkets, which, from time to time, not only irritate farmers but produce considerable anger. However, changes are taking place in that market. Consumers are undoubtedly becoming more discerning. For example, they are taking into account the distance that food is transported before it arrives on their plate. The fact that such considerations are being taken to heart by consumers is changing the relationship that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Geoff Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say to my hon. Friend that, having had to prepare for Cabinet, attend the meeting, and prepare for business questions, I had not had time to read this morning's copy of the Wimbledon Post. However, I suspect that I no longer need to do so. I am grateful to her for raising this issue and I am sure that she will be guaranteed good coverage in tomorrow's edition of that august publication. I am not sure that I need to add anything to what she said.

Andrew MacKinlay: Can I take the Leader of the House back to his reply a few moments ago to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in relation to the Health Bill, when he said that the House would have adequate time to discuss the carefully considered proposition of the Cabinet. I think that I summarise him correctly. Will he therefore consider having the key clauses of the Bill dealt with on the Floor of the House, as has happened with some other controversial legislation involving conscience, and will he bear in mind, and discuss with his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip, the need for an unwhipped vote on these issues? The question of people who work in private clubs and children who go to private clubs needs to be addressed. Does he have an open mind?

Pete Wishart: When we have the debate on returning asylum seekers, can we have a good and proper look at the use of dawn raids by the immigration service? There is almost universal revulsion and embarrassment in Scotland about the use of that practice, especially with our backdrop of a falling population. Does the Leader of the House agree that because of our different immigration requirements, and because of our clearly different political values on the matter, it is time to devolve immigration to the Scottish Parliament?

Paul Flynn: The vote on the smoking ban is really a vote on whether we have a partial or total ban—whether we vote for saving thousands of lives and avoiding thousands of cases of cancer, or stick to the holy writ of the manifesto. Can I remind the Leader of the House that not all Labour Members stood on the same manifesto, because there were different manifestos in Scotland and Wales? Can we have a debate on manifestos?

William Cash: I very much endorse the views expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The glorification provision, to which I have tabled a number of amendments, takes us into extremely dangerous territory. It will lead to extremely unproductive discussion and invite the problems that I mentioned earlier in an intervention on the Minister.
	I think that I heard the Home Secretary suggest this morning on the "Today" programme—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the glorification provision was an important but not essential part of the Bill. Given the circumstances and the narrow majority for this provision of just one vote, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe referred, I hope that I can infer from the Home Secretary's comments that the Government are not going to insist on it. If it proceeds to the House of Lords, it will get into increasingly deep trouble. I sat through the whole of yesterday's debate and I cannot remember a single Member—apart from Government Front Benchers—saying a single word in favour of including the glorification provision in the Bill.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was right to say that we must deal with other aspects of incitement to terrorism and the proscription of terrorist organisations. However, it is simply absurd to introduce the notion of glorification to deal with the mischief that terrorism presents.
	With respect to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I must point out that not only past associations are important in this respect. Present associations must also be taken into account. Yesterday, I spoke about the Catholic martyrs of the 16th century, to whom Catholic services still constantly refer. Beatification is still an issue, as is the fate of people such as St. Edmund Campion and others. For instance, in the persecutions of the late 16th century, 30 people who attended my old school were martyred. They were hung, drawn and quartered, and services are held at regular intervals to glorify them.
	Martyrdom, whether religious or political, is not confined to the past. It happens in the present, and will continue to happen in the future. People will continue to act in ways contrary to the circumstances of the present, and the law must deal with that. Inserting into the Bill a notion of glorification, unlawful or otherwise, is extremely dangerous, as it will encourage much uncertainty and unnecessary hostility.

Alistair Carmichael: We have had a useful discussion, but one aspect that needs to be emphasised is an echo of yesterday's discussion on clause 1. It is the fact that it is possible for an individual, as well as an organisation, to fall foul of the provision merely because of a perception on somebody else's part. We should criminalise the intent of the individual or organisation, not the way in which somebody else might see their actions. Many organisations that try to highlight issues in connection with places such as Palestine or Kashmir will have to tread an exceptionally fine line, and it should not be the business of the House to proscribe their activities simply because somebody else may feel that they have crossed that line.

Paul Goggins: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me a second, because I was about to come to the point that he raised? He asked me for specific examples, and of course, some of our discussions have related not to the specific issue that we are discussing here, which is proscription, but to the conduct of individual people. With individual people, it would be for the courts to determine whether glorification had actually taken place in a specific case. Now, however, we are discussing glorification by an organisation to an extent that requires it to be proscribed.

Kenneth Clarke: The clause extends the existing definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. My recollection is that no one in the House objected to the powers taken in 2000 to proscribe organisations promoting terrorism. However, clause 21 implies that the Government have had a difficulty—that they have wanted to proscribe an organisation but because what it was doing was glorifying past terrorism, they were unable to do so. The Minister may be able to cite some particular organisation, or at lest to describe anonymously some problem that has arisen involving an organisation that ought to have been proscribed, but as its activities were based on glorification of martyrs, past causes, freedom fighters or whatever, in some other part of the world, it could not be proscribed. I am not aware of the Government having been prevented from using their powers in such circumstances. Can the Minister let us know what provoked this measure, and why it is necessary to extend the definition? What are the organisations that now get through a loophole that will be closed by the strange introduction of the concept of "glorifying" as a particularly worrying action?

Paul Goggins: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a specific example, but I can tell him that as we take the Bill forward, it is important that we have the necessary powers in place where it is necessary to proscribe organisations that glorify acts of terror—acts that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) reminded the Committee earlier, are acts of mass murder.
	Because of his knowledge of the previous legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that when the Home Secretary takes the view that a particular organisation should be proscribed, he does so not on a whim, but with great care and judgment. He then has to come to both Houses of Parliament for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. Indeed, under the existing legislation and the existing rules, we did exactly that a couple of weeks ago. Not only is care taken with the initial decision, but that decision then has to be agreed and affirmed by both Houses.

Paul Goggins: I was about to come to my hon. Friend's question, so now is definitely the time to deal with it. When making a judgment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will of course look at all the evidence, and I find it highly unlikely that a record company would be considered worthy of proscription in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West described.
	My hon. Friend, and several other right hon. and hon. Members, have referred to matters of history. I invite them to read paragraphs (a) and (b) of suggested new subsection (5B) of section 3 of the 2000 Act, which makes it clear that we are talking about
	"conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances".

Richard Burden: I wish to give my hon. Friend an example of something that might happen. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned the Sandinistas, and the history of that part of the world still often leads to cultural events, many involving music. Let us suppose that a further assassination happened in South America, as Pat Buchanan has urged, and that that led to a military coup in Venezuela. That might lead to people thinking that resistance to that regime might be justified. If somebody glorified the Sandinistas at a social event and referred in some way to the awful things that were going on in Venezuela, would they commit an offence under this Bill?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is an assiduous contributor to our important debates and I will happily give way to him.

Rob Marris: The problem with the wording that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned is that the first "of" should read "or". I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will have another look at the issue, but I remind him that I gave a specific example of an organisation, not an individual. I chose the example of the distributors of the film "Michael Collins" because some people in the 26 counties and, indeed, the six counties of Northern Ireland, believe that the unification of Ireland is unfinished business. Rightly or wrongly, many people think that and they do so "in existing circumstances". My hon. Friend claimed that an organisation would need to glorify conduct in order to encourage its emulation to fall foul of the provision, but the wording in new subsection (5B) talks of someone
	"who could reasonably be expected to infer".
	Some people who saw the film "Michael Collins" might infer from it that their conduct in existing circumstances today should be to engage in violent conduct to finish the business in Ireland of uniting the 32 counties. It would be very wrong of them to engage in such activities, as we would all agree, but such conduct might be inferred from the film. I therefore strongly urge my hon. Friend to have another look at the provision because the distributors of that film could fall foul of it in all innocence.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill
	Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raises an important point. It is not an easy matter; the criticism that can be made of the approach he advocates is that if a list has to be produced of what the acts happen to be, it could become unnecessarily prescriptive. One cannot always predict the act or conduct that first highlights the intention to give effect to committing an act of terrorism.
	It is worth bearing in mind the possible scope of the legislation, however. In that sense, it is similar to the old treason statutes—compassing and imagining the death of the king. One would not have to do very much to be liable to imprisonment for life. If someone decided that they wanted to become a terrorist and the first thing they did was to buy a new suit to wear on the day that they blew themselves up, they would be liable, without doing anything else, to imprisonment for life, if it could be proved that the buying of the suit was linked to the intention to become a suicide bomber.
	That example seems rather a good one because on the face of it, such a situation would be caught by the clause. I do not know how much reassurance the Minister can provide about how the clause would work in practice. That is what we need to examine. As the Minister knows, we have not expressed opposition to the clause in theory but as so often happens the theory, the detail and the practice—how the measure operates—are different things.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for tabling what he acknowledged were probing amendments. I hope to explain why the Government do not find it possible to support them, but I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them.
	The purpose of the offence of acts preparatory, which was suggested during our earlier debates on terrorism legislation, is to enable the prosecution of people known to have instigated an act of terrorism or to have been planning or preparing to commit an act of terrorism. I am delighted that there has been a general welcome for that provision. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland reiterated that during his comments and it has been expressed on both sides of the House.
	We all realise that the need to protect the public means that the police and security services must intervene early when they become aware of a terrorist cell. It may not be possible to know the precise atrocity that was being planned—indeed, the terrorists themselves might not have made up their minds about a specific target; nevertheless, the offence requires clear evidence of intent to commit a terrorist act, which is of course a serious criminal matter, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly emphasised that the key feature of the "acts preparatory" offence is that it can be used when terrorists' exact plans are unknown. He asks how this will work in practice. I am sure that he well understands that preparatory acts can be proven to have taken place only when the connection is made between the specific action and the terrorist act itself. Purchasing a car on its own is not an act preparatory to terrorism, but once it has been connected to the act of terror, it becomes a preparatory act. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
	Obviously, the offence must be drawn widely to include all the possible acts that could be preparatory acts. Attempting to create and maintain a list of all those acts that could possibly be considered as being preparatory to a terrorist attack would be, frankly, impossible, as the hon. Gentleman made it plain before. If we had a list that included buying a suit, we would have a very long list indeed. Of course that would not be a practical or feasible challenge.
	The second and perhaps more important point is that it is likely that any list would be reactive. In other words, we would learn about preparatory acts based on the last terrorist atrocity, rather than being able to anticipate what might come in the future. It would be possible for mischievous terrorists to work their way around that provision if we were to include it in secondary legislation, as the amendment suggests.
	We need an open situation where any preparatory act that can be linked to terrorism is captured by the offence. The risk of terrorists devising new methods of preparing for terrorist acts is too great to allow such an approach. We cannot give the opportunity to terrorists to evade prosecution in that way. Again, Lord Carlile has described clause 5 as
	"a proportional and proper response to achieve the criminalisation of the conduct described."
	I conclude by once again thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their warm and general support for this new provision on preparatory acts. We hope that it will help us to bear down more successfully in future on those who would carry out acts of terror against innocent people.

Rob Marris: May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the wording of clause 5 underscores yet again the difficulties that we have as legislators have in defining terrorism? Given the way the clause is worded, as I understand it, if I give 25p to collection for the Karen National Liberation Army in Burma, I can be sentenced to life imprisonment. As someone who wishes to fight oppression and has been political all his life, and recognising that the state of Burma is in no way democratic, that it should be resisted and that that resistance should occasionally take a quasi-military form against the military, I find that outrageous. Given the difficulty with the lack of clarity about what is terrorism, if I give 25p to the KNLA or a similar organisation, I can go to prison for life.

Dominic Grieve: The amendments relate to clause 8 as well as clause 6. Clause 6 is titled "Training for terrorism" and clause 8 is titled "Attendance at a place used for terrorist training". I have no difficulty with the principle of introducing such criminal offences. However, as we have seen in our previous debates, the detail of the measures presents considerable difficulties.
	May I start with training for terrorism? Clause 6 says:
	"A person commits an offence if . . . he provides instruction or training in any of the skills mentioned in subsection (3); and . . . at the time he provides the instruction or training, he knows or suspects that a person receiving it intends to use the skills in which he is being instructed or trained . . . for or in connection with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or . . . for assisting the commission or preparation by others of such acts or offences."
	The Minister will acknowledge that those skills are very wide. They include:
	"the making, handling or use of a noxious substance, or of substances of a description of such substances . . . the use of any method or technique for doing anything else that is capable of being done for the purposes of terrorism . . . and . . . the design or adaptation for the purposes of terrorism, or in connection with the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism or Convention offence, of any method or technique for doing anything."
	The Minister will be aware of examples of the people about whom we are talking that spring to mind from past experience, such as somebody who trains someone else in chemistry, which enables that person to make explosives. Another example is someone who might train someone else to fly a small aircraft, to which could be attached crop-spraying equipment through which noxious biological or chemical substances could be distributed. A further example is someone who teaches someone else to fly, and then the plane might be used as a missile, as happened in the events of 2001 in the United States. The range is vast.
	I do not suppose that the House of Commons would have any trouble criminalising someone who, in the knowledge that an individual was asking for instruction in any of the areas to which I have referred, knew also that that knowledge would be used for the purposes of terrorism. There would be no difficulty in saying that such a person should be treated as a criminal if they had that knowledge. However, the way in which the Government have worded the clause means that it applies not only to someone who knows, but to someone who suspects. The use of the word "suspicion" in this instance can be very wide. Many things can give rise to suspicion, but suspicion in itself need not necessarily be grounded in fact. Someone may suspect someone else, but it may turn out that they are wrong. Suspicion is when we start feeling a little uneasy.
	There are some obvious examples. There is that of a teacher of chemistry at university giving a lecture to students. The teacher is dealing with substances that could potentially be used for explosive purposes. A student in the room asks him a question, which although it might have an innocent explanation also suggests that he might have an interest in explosive properties. Experience of chemistry students at university suggests that many of them have a great deal of interest in the explosive properties of some of the substances that they use, but for frivolous purposes rather than terrorism.
	As I read the way in which the clause is drafted, unless the university lecturer immediately says to the class, "I am sorry, but this class cannot continue with the presence of the individual who asked that question", he would have committed a criminal offence. I do not think that that can be the way that the Government intend the provision to work in practice. No doubt we shall be told again about the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions in bringing a prosecution, but in reality we must put something into the clause that provides a safeguard for the individual.
	One approach is that of amendment No. 57, which would provide that an offence cannot be committed merely on suspicion—there has to be actual knowledge. However, although that amendment is the lead amendment in the group that is before us, it is not my favoured route. The Minister will be aware that other legislation we have considered, especially money laundering provisions, also had "knows" or "suspects" as the grounds for the commission of many criminal offences—but it did at least have the saving clause that if someone believed that it was not his job to stop something, he should instead report his suspicion to a relevant authority.
	That, too, is far from ideal. The point has been well made by the academic lobbies that have written, I suspect, to many right hon. and hon. Members, that to an extent university lecturers and teachers, or anyone else, will be turned into potential spies. That would be an uncomfortable situation for them.
	The anxiety that has been expressed from many academic quarters—I could quote the publication if the Minister so wished—about the implications of the clause is real. Amendment No. 58 tries to deal with that by providing:
	"It shall be a defence to an offence under section 6(1), for the defendant to show that he reported any suspicion to the police or in the case of an employee to his employer or other person in authority over him."
	That still leaves open the criticism that the Bill will turn university lecturers into spies. It is a valid point when they say:
	"We believe the fundamental bond of trust between a lecturer and their students, along with the freedom of academic inquiry, would be potentially restricted if all lecturers in certain academic fields of study were, in effect, caused to spy upon their students. They would have to make a subjective judgment about whether they had any suspicion that any of their students may use their knowledge at some point in the future to commit a terrorist act. We believe this to be too broadly written."
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that concern, which I think is a real one, not a frivolous one.

Dominic Grieve: That is right. We know from the past that many of the experts in weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—technical engineers—were all trained at Imperial college. The foundations of the Iraqi nuclear research programme were based on the knowledge of the students who had been on the relevant courses, to such an extent that I understand that now there is an informal system of regulation to try to provide a degree of vetting of those who undertake courses that may be particularly sensitive in terms of technology being imparted to such people.
	These are real issues, which I acknowledge, but we must live in the real world. A university lecturer who is delivering a course is placed in a difficult position if he begins to worry about a perfectly ordinary undergraduate. It is the same for someone who is training someone else to fly a small aircraft. Potentially, he might be committing a criminal offence. The worry for him is that if something subsequently emerges about the individual, the chain will be followed up in exactly the same way as it was after the events of September 2001. He will then be questioned and might even be prosecuted and liable to 10 years' imprisonment. The Government must provide a let-out clause to ensure that people are not placed in an impossible position.
	The reality of most contractual relationships is that if a student pays money to acquire a skill, the classes cannot be discontinued half way through because it is thought that he is an unsavoury character. Either there has to be a fail-safe mechanism so that the student can be reported and the teacher told whether or not he should continue with the classes, or there must be some protection under the law. That is what amendment No. 58 is designed to achieve.
	I take amendment No. 58 seriously and regard it as more than a probing amendment. Unless the Minister can provide me with some assurance that the Government will reconsider this issue between now and next Wednesday, or can give me a positive response in this debate, I intend to put the amendment to the vote. There must be a safeguard that enables people to report to their employer or to someone in authority, saying, "I am troubled by this student but I cannot really say anything more about it." That person would know that he was protected and would not subsequently be open to prosecution.
	The same thing, but in rather a different context, will apply to attendance at a terrorist training camp. I am sure that we all agree that that should be made a criminal offence. There is ample evidence that individuals have attended places that provide terrorist training—they went there because they wanted to be trained as terrorists. The difficulty arises over what happens if individuals find themselves at a place of terrorist training for good, valid or innocent reasons? There is no mechanism in clause 8 for any exoneration of such a person. The only fall-back position will be the discretion of, presumably, the Attorney-General—I hope that the terrorist training place is abroad, but I suppose that it could be in the UK—or the DPP not to prosecute. There is a way through that difficulty that improves the clause, and that is what amendment No. 59 is designed to achieved. It states:
	"It shall be a defence to an offence under this section for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities"—
	so the onus will be on the defendant, which is not something I usually like, but to make the Bill bite I accept that we should reverse the burden on the balance of probabilities—
	"that his attendance at any place used for terrorist training was—
	(a) for the purpose of preventing the instruction or training taking place; or
	(b) for the purpose of gathering information about the instruction or training; or
	(c) involuntary."

Dominic Grieve: A different wording is, of course, possible, and I am happy to listen to any variants that the Minister may suggest. There is nothing sacred in being a journalist, just as there is nothing sacred in being a Member of Parliament or anything else. Categorising journalists as a separate group is not necessarily helpful. Someone may wish to be present to gather information about instruction or training, and an undercover journalist is an obvious example. However, I do not see why the provision should be restricted. I fully acknowledge that it may provide a get-out clause because people could claim that they only attended the camp to gather information. A jury, however, would ask, "For what purpose?" A coherent reason would have to be provided. A BBC journalist, for example, could say that they had heard about a camp. The police were not interested, so they sent an undercover journalist to find out what was happening. If someone simply says that they went along because they were intrigued they are unlikely to be believed. Alternatively, someone could say that they heard what was going on and were worried about it, so they decided to find out what was happening before tipping off the authorities. That person needs to be covered as well as the journalist.

Chris Bryant: The problem is the word "legitimate". The hon. Gentleman—no, it was the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who accused the Government earlier of using inchoate language.—[Interruption.] It was the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). They merge into one. The problem is that the word "legitimate" is, of itself, inchoate. It is merely a circular argument.

Rob Marris: I seek some reassurance from the Minister on amendment No. 58. For example, a university lecturer, lecturing in chemistry at the excellent university of Wolverhampton, could inadvertently fall foul of the clause by having suspicions but, not wishing to act on them, by ceasing to teach the pupil concerned for fear of offending the pupil. I suspect that often in such circumstances a lecturer would initially downplay his or her suspicions because they did not want to cause offence in a social sense, but they would then be committing an offence in the legal sense, and there should be a middle ground, such as is set out in amendment No. 58, although I am not sure that its wording is quite right. Such suspicions could be reported to someone in authority, with the lecturer saying, "I haven't yet confronted the student, but I want to alert you to the fact that I think that they are taking a rather unprincipled interest in the chemistry of what I am teaching them."

Hywel Williams: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that the range of activities is vast, and I am concerned with particular activities in Wales and north Wales, outdoor pursuit training and, pertinently in this case, white-water rafting on the Tryweryn river, in which some of the people involved in the events of 7 July were engaged. The range is vast, so how will the providers of such training decide whether they should suspect someone? There is a question about the degree to which they should suspect that people engaging in otherwise entirely legitimate and innocent activities are engaged in preparation for terrorism. I understand that terrorists often engage in such innocent activities for the purposes of team building and to increase a feeling of camaraderie. They might engage in such activities as part of a larger group. There is a lack of clarity for training providers.
	A further question that I worry about is not directly related to the clause, but if a group of young Asian men, possibly Muslims, turn up in white, Welsh-speaking north Wales to go white-water rafting, is the provider of the activity to suspect them merely because they are a group of young Asian males? All kinds of possibilities are opened up that are entirely undesirable.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I support the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because I have some serious concerns about clause 6.
	The Bill gives itself a universal jurisdiction and seeks to cast the net very widely over potential suspects. Many of us who represent inner-city constituencies are familiar with accusations that places such as community centres and mosques are being used for terrorist training—it is easy to make such an accusation, in the same way as it is easy for people to accuse their neighbours of being drug dealers. We must therefore be extremely careful in drawing the net so widely that people are automatically guilty by association. I appreciate that any prosecution must occur within the terms of the Attorney-General's decision, but the matter poses some serious dangers.
	The Bill says that anyone who has visited a terrorist training camp anywhere in world is guilty by association, and I think that amendment No. 59 probably helps with that problem. I have visited a number of refugee camps in central America that were characterised by their opponents and neighbouring Governments as terrorist training camps. During the war in El Salvador, El Salvadorian refugee camps in Honduras were routinely accused of being terrorist training camps. I do not believe that they were terrorist training camps, but the accusation was and is made frequently. The Bill could lead to doubtful hearsay evidence of attendance at such places being used to accuse and prosecute somebody. The Minister must think carefully about amendment No. 59, which would improve clause 8.
	My final point applies to the whole Bill. The tenor of the Bill is to try to charge people as widely as possible with advocacy of, preparation for or association with terrorism, which will alienate large numbers of people who already feel quite alienated from normal British society. Many young Muslims who live in inner-urban areas already feel alienated. Are they in danger of being prosecuted for attending classes in which someone speaks or going to a community centre where it is alleged that training activities have taken place? We could end up not only criminalising the innocent by detaining them for 90 days without charge, but reducing the likelihood of co-operation with the authorities on genuine cases in which someone is seriously planning to commit criminal acts either in this country or anywhere else. We should learn from the experience in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1971, when alienation grew so rapidly that it led to 20 years of troubles. I fear that we will alienate people who do not want to be alienated and who want to live in a decent, free-speaking, democratic society, because we are in danger of driving them in the other direction.

John Bercow: It is important to be pedantic about the matter and to explore all possible scenarios. I do not agree with the Under-Secretary about intention. There could be a circumstances whereby a person is employed as part of an operation on or adjacent to the site where terrorist training takes place. The said individual could be aware of his attendance on the site but engaged in a wholly unrelated activity.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments Nos. 101 to 103.

Paul Goggins: It might be helpful to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) if I say nothing at this point and wait for the stand part debate, when I may be in a position to respond to them in a fuller way than would be permitted at this moment.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 101, in page 12, line 36, leave out from 'force' to end of line 42 and insert
	'as lies within the outer perimeter of the protection provided for those premises; and
	(b) so much of any other premises of which premises falling within paragraph (a) form a part as lies within that outer perimeter.'.
	No. 102, in page 13, line 11, at beginning insert 'so much of'.
	No. 103, in page 13, line 13, leave out from 'force' to end of line 19 and insert
	'as lies within the outer perimeter of the protection provided for those premises; and
	(b) so much of any other premises of which premises falling within paragraph (a) form a part as lies within that outer perimeter.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goggins: With your permission, Mr. Cook, I will follow up the inquiries made by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I do not think that I will be able to give as full answers to them now as I would like, given the seriousness of the issues that they have raised. Both my hon. Friends and others have a record of campaigning in this area and have a particular interest in it. I acknowledge and respect that. It is important that I provide my hon. Friends with a full answer.
	The essential answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is that the provision is in the Bill to deal with the threat that is posed by unauthorised people who enter a nuclear site. The particular relevance is where they might have entered for the purposes of terrorism. That is why it is relevant for the provision to be in the Bill.
	I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that the amendments to the clause relate only to a few licensed nuclear sites. We are dealing with licensed sites, part of which exist outside the perimeter fence. I think that my hon. Friend understands that. The question that he asks—this is why he deserves and will receive a fuller answer from me at a later stage—is about the process for deciding what is the designated site, the process for de-designating that site and the process for deciding where the boundary fence should be and how easily that can be moved. I do not know the answer to those questions now, but I shall try to provide them at a later stage.
	I emphasise that the provision is to deal with a licensed site that is outside the perimeter fence. I hope that on the whole it will help to clarify the position and help my hon. Friends with some of the concerns that they may have had.

Jeremy Corbyn: I listened to the Minister and I understand the amendments that have been accepted. I wrote down his words, which were "purposes of terrorism on entering the base". There were many occasions during the Greenham Common women's camp when women climbed over or cut the fence and entered the base to paint flowers on nuclear missiles and hang drapes on tanks—entirely peaceful things. Under the Bill, anyone who climbed into the Aldermaston site and painted something on the walls to the effect that they believed that nuclear weapons were dangerous, illegal and immoral and that this country should adhere to the non-proliferation treaty would not be accused of criminal damage or trespass, as at present, but would become terrorists, potentially detained for 90 days without going to court while questioning took place, and might then receive a long period of imprisonment.
	What kind of message does that send? I am sure that the Minister has many friends who belong to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and have been active in the peace movement all their lives, as have Members on both sides of the House. Are we advancing anything by designating as terrorists people who, by their very nature, are opposed to violence, terror and the existence of nuclear weapons, and who in many cases are equally opposed to nuclear power? I honestly do not see the point of the clause standing part other than gratuitously to criminalise a large body of people who act for entirely peaceful purposes and who have brought about significant political changes. That is simply not a sensible way to proceed. It will further alienate large sections of the population who do not want to be alienated, but do want to engage in serious political debate about the morality of nuclear weapons.

Jeremy Corbyn: I never wish to be led astray by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Future generations will recall the Greenham Common women more than they will recall the Coalition for Peace through Security, and Peace through NATO—that is the only point I wish to make on the subject.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about for what offence the protesters would be prosecuted. The Minister referred to people entering a site for the purposes of terrorism. He will correct me if I or the hon. Member for Buckingham have misunderstood the provision, but my reading is that everyone who enters a designated nuclear site—whether a power station, a base, a research site and so on—for whatever purpose, whether to plant a bomb or paint flowers on something, would be treated in exactly the same way and would be convicted under the Bill.
	It would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what he meant, because it appears to me that the provision is gratuitously trying to entrap large numbers of peace movement members within the ambit of terrorism. At the moment, they would probably be charged with criminal damage for breaking a fence and also trespass. Anyone who plants a bomb commits several criminal acts, not least acts preparatory to murder, which are already within the ambit of criminal law. Why, therefore, are nuclear sites and bases included in the Bill? What information is displayed outside bases to make clear the point at which someone becomes a suspect under the terrorism legislation when they cross a threshold? Will signs be put up on all those sites, and will they be designated in that way? These are serious matters as a substantial number of people may end up in prison for a long time.

David Drew: I do not want to take much more of the Committee's time. I know that the Minister is going to write to me—I welcome that and I hope that he will copy that letter to other hon. Members as well—but I have some concerns about the difference between a licensed site and the perimeter of that site. They are not one and the same thing, and people legitimately standing outside a site might be arrested on terrorist offences because they happen to be on what is decreed to be part of the licensed site even though they may be outside the perimeter.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that this is a completely inappropriate place to introduce this change. I shall make my point as succinctly as I can. For all sorts of reasons, our nuclear establishments are secure places, but by their very nature they are working places. People who go on to them are passholders and as such they have an obligation to do their job and not in any way threaten the country by the nature of their work. As much as we are trying to keep people out, this has implications for people who work on the inside of such an establishment. I am not sure whether this measure has been thought through sufficiently. If we are talking about someone who did something as a member of staff, that could bring in the whole question of whether they were acting illegitimately and therefore threatening the country and so would be subject to the Bill and deemed to be terrorists. This is beginning to open up a can of worms. Could I ask the Minister, in the nicest possible way, to reconsider the clause? It may have been inserted with good purpose, but it begs a lot of questions that I am not sure can be answered at this time.

John Bercow: I am at a peculiar disadvantage, although I do not think that I am uniquely in that position to judge by the contributions that have been made so far. I say that I am at a disadvantage because I do not have clause 15 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 readily to hand. I would go further and vouchsafe to the House that I do not have a copy of the Act or any part thereof readily to hand. However, there is a serious issue here. Clearly, clause 12 is designed to amend the provisions of that Act passed only a short time ago this year. I have read clause 12 patiently and with some care on four occasions, but I am none the wiser.
	A consensus is emerging and, while it is implicit rather than explicit, it is important—in matters of this kind, it is incredibly important that our terms are tightly defined and that the legislation is narrowly confined to that which it needs to address. If we do not do that, we will not only create uncertainty, because people will not know what many of the clauses mean, but be in danger of debauching the currency of debate about terrorism legislation itself, which greatly bothers me.
	I cannot see why this clause must be in this Bill. It may be perfectly worthy, but it would be more effectively and appropriately incorporated in different legislation.

Paul Goggins: In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), clause 12 adds civil nuclear sites to the category of sites that fall within the ambit of the criminal trespass regime created by sections 128 and 129 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. In this country, there is a respected tradition of the right to protest, but there is no right to trespass.
	I suspect that many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), would not be happy with the provision, regardless of the legislation in which it was introduced. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, the offence of trespass is wider than only terrorists, but it should be extended in this Bill because someone who trespasses on a nuclear site poses a terrorist risk. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he cannot see the relevance of clause 12, but the offence would be extremely relevant if a terrorist were to gain access to a nuclear site.
	The purpose of clause 12 is not only criminalising people who protest, but protecting them properly. If a protester got on to a nuclear site, it may be assumed that he is a terrorist and that he presents a risk, in which case the action taken may be wholly disproportionate to what the individual concerned intended, so the fact that someone is on a nuclear site without authority puts him at risk. Clarity around the law will protect the interests of protesters, who should know where they stand and where they can and cannot go.

Paul Goggins: Of course I accept that people may be in an unauthorised place for different purposes, but those responsible for security may not be able to make a quick judgment about that. If they had to do so, they would, rightly, fear the worst.
	Let me put another scenario to my hon. Friend. What if a terrorist decided to enter an unauthorised nuclear site posing as a protestor, perhaps even with other protestors? How would the differentiation be made in that case? We need clarity in the law to ensure that anybody on one of those nuclear sites without the authority to be there is outside the law and guilty of trespass under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 91, in clause 17, page 16, line 5, at end insert
	'and
	(c) the action involves harm or the threat of harm to a national of the United Kingdom.'.

Rob Marris: I ask the Minister to have another think about these matters. I understood him to say—perhaps I misunderstood him—that clause 17 is being introduced in part to comply with our international obligations under the Council of Europe convention for the prevention of terrorism, and similar obligations. That confuses me because in the explanatory notes to clause 1, it states:
	"The offence has been introduced to implement the requirements of Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism".
	Clause 1 refers to the convention. Clause 17, as I read it, makes no reference to that convention and nor to the explanatory notes. I ask my hon. Friend to think again and either to explain tonight or at some other convenient juncture what it is in clause 17 that is needed for us as a country to comply with these international obligations.

David Heath: We have had an interesting debate. I began by saying that I was moving a probing amendment. Goodness, we probed. The amendment has had the effect of probing a hornets' nest. We are now clear that what the Minister is proposing goes well beyond what is necessary to meet international obligations. It goes well beyond what some of us would see as a sensible extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction—I almost said extraterrestrial again, to please the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—in dealing effectively with those who commit or are to a serious extent planning terrorist offences abroad.
	Points have been made about the difficulty of those who seek asylum in our country. It is right that if someone is a terrorist they should not be given asylum in the United Kingdom. The problem with the Bill is that it goes well beyond the convention definitions of terrorism and introduces offences in this country that would be unknown to any other jurisdiction. It extends the scope well beyond that which is reasonable to exclude people from asylum in this country on that basis. That worries me. People have to give a truthful answer when they are asked what their experiences are in their country of origin when they apply for asylum. They are required to give evidence that will then be used to prosecute them because they have encouraged someone or a group within their country, whose members they believe to be freedom fighters in the context of their country's circumstances but in British law will be termed a terrorist organisation. That poses real problems.
	As I have said, the difficulty is still one of definition. It is a debate that we are still to have, unfortunately. When I listened to the Minister's response, including his truthful but extraordinary response to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I was convinced that we could not leave the issue to Report. We need to express to Ministers that they need to tighten these definitions considerably if we are to agree to them at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill.
	On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I still maintain the position that there is a possibility of finding an extraterritorial jurisdiction that is based on clear definitions that meets our commitments by treaty that we would be happy to support. What we have heard from the Minister this evening suggests that we are a long way from that. On that basis, I think that we need to test the opinion of the Committee.

Dominic Grieve: Clause 18 extends a liability for offences under the Bill to bodies corporate. Where an offence by a body corporate is committed, the liability will also lie with company directors and other officers. Under subsection (1), a
	"director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or . . . a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity"
	will be guilty of an offence committed by a body corporate. Such an offence can be committed because the person consented or connived in it, or because it was attributable to neglect on his part.
	That is a fairly remarkable concept. I am familiar with the form of words, because my experience of practising in health and safety at work tells me that it is lifted directly from that field. That may be appropriate when one is trying to achieve a degree of regulation, and when the maximum penalty is a fine, but it is a rather novel concept that a person should be sent to prison for life for having been neglectful in allowing his company to commit an offence.
	The provision could extend in directions that I suspect the Minister may not have intended. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) for giving me an example a moment ago. He suggested that if a licence was applied for to collect money in the street on behalf of an organisation that was acting unlawfully under the Bill, because it was raising money for terrorism, the mayor and the officers of the corporation who granted that licence would all be liable to lengthy terms of imprisonment for failing to carry out checks on the organisation concerned. I cannot believe that the Government genuinely intend that. Yet again, we have an example of a provision that has been drafted astonishingly broadly and is capable of having consequences that are not only unintended but manifestly unjust.
	The amendment would allow for the liability of company directors and other officers in cases of consent or connivance but remove it in the case of neglect. I hope that the Under-Secretary can accept it.

Richard Burden: Amendment No. 33 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin). I would also like to say a few words about the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 33 covers an issue that I raised on Second Reading. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 19 on pages 4 and 5 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which makes it clear that a person would be regarded as committing a terrorist act if they did something
	"for the benefit of a proscribed organisation."
	I shall repeat the example that I gave on Second Reading. If an hon. Member, either directly or through intermediaries, urged Hamas to desist from its military and terrorist activities and to get involved instead in the democratic process in the west bank and Gaza—this is not a theoretical point; these arguments are taking place in Hamas at the moment—I would suggest that that activity would be for the benefit of a proscribed organisation. Hamas is definitely a terrorist organisation, and it is definitely proscribed under existing legislation. My reading of the Bill as it stands is that such an act would become unlawful. That is ludicrous.
	When I put this to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading, he was very definite in his response. He said:
	"First, it would be to the benefit of that organisation, and secondly, it would not be criminal."—[Official Report, 26 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 339.]
	I appreciate his giving me that assurance, but I still do see that in the Bill. It is what is in the Bill that is important, so I would appreciate it if he would tell me what he can do to clarify this matter, perhaps on Report.
	The main question that we are dealing with in regard to this group of amendments is the definition of terrorism. Yesterday, I was struck by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), when he read out a passage from "Homage to Catalonia". That book also had a major impact on my political thinking, particularly when I became a student in the early 70s. Within a month of my going to York university, Salvador Allende's Government in Chile was overthrown by the Pinochet regime. Throughout the 70s, while I was at university, I found out a lot about what was going on in Chile. Exiled Chilean students came to my university, and I got to know them and learned a lot from them about what people were going through in Chile at that time. People were being herded into football stadiums; there were death squads. Some of those students said that they wanted to take up arms against the fascist regime, but I could not regard them as terrorists. However, under the definition in the Bill, they would be.
	These amendments have to be considered in the context of clause 1. It would have been wrong if those people who opposed the Pinochet regime in Chile had murdered civilians. That would have been wrong even then. Even if they had urged such action, I would certainly have argued with them and disagreed with them, but whether I would have wanted to criminalise them is another matter. However, clause 1 as it stands would criminalise them. If we are going to have such provisions in clause 1, it is essential that, when we define terrorism, we draw a distinction between actions taken against civilians and non-combatants—which are not justifiable—and actions taken against the forces of a regime similar to the Pinochet regime. That seems to be the crux of the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).
	One of the criticisms of the amendment is that it would not regard attacks on British troops as terrorist, which is true. In my view, however, anybody in this country who urged attacks on British troops would be guilty of at least incitement and probably also treason. The fact that someone is attacking troops does not of itself make the attack terrorism. It might make it unjustifiable, abhorrent or treasonable, but it does not necessarily make it terrorism. Let us remember that every regime in the world that has faced some kind of insurgency—the South African one springs to mind—always describes forces that take action against it, if they are not regular forces, as terrorist. While we might want to tidy up provisions to deal with matters regarding British troops, we must not get ourselves into a situation whereby we give succour to oppressive regimes who want to describe people as terrorists not because of what they do, not because they target civilians and not because they are involved in genocide, but simply because they oppose them. Such a tightening of the definition of terrorism is the purpose of this group of amendments.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us on the matter later so that we can discuss such issues in more detail on Report.

John Denham: What I shall say about my amendment, No. 69, will follow comments that have already been made and will, I hope, begin to show the possibility of a way of dealing with the problems that we confront—the type of civilian murder promoted by al-Qaeda, and also the type of international obligations that we need to introduce in response to events such as Beslan—while avoiding other problems, which have been well highlighted.
	One of the more disconcerting aspects of the debate so far has, I am afraid, been the tendency of Ministers not to acknowledge that there is a problem with the definition. I hope that at the end of this brief debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will at least acknowledge that there is a problem, which needs to be explored between now and Report.
	My amendments may not be perfect, but nor is the Bill. Attention has already been drawn to the anomaly of it being legal to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but illegal to support the Iraqi people if they acted in the same way. I want to discuss the problem of definitions more narrowly. There is nothing magic about the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. It is not based on international law. Other definitions are significantly different. The European Union Council framework decision, for example, lists much the same offences, but involves a much higher threshold. It refers to "seriously intimidating a population", to
	"unduly compelling a Government . . . to perform or abstain"
	from certain acts, and to
	"seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation".
	Those are high thresholds and they do not exist in our own national legislation. It is true that we have to ratify the Council of Europe convention, but it does not define terrorism. We are free to define terrorism as we want, as long as we include certain specific offences, so there is no single agreed definition of terrorism. I am looking for a wording that we can apply to the new situation—the international spread of terrorism aimed directly at the mass murder of civilians.

John Denham: I will touch on that issue, which relates to the report from which I took the wording of my amendment, in a moment. That report was by the high-level working group established by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in preparation for the 60th anniversary world summit. The group addressed the problem of defining terrorism legally, politically and specifically. It concluded—I am paraphrasing, but I hope fairly—that actions of states such as war, occupation and genocide are already covered by international law in one way or another. Attempts to agree international laws on terrorism, excluding specific offences, have so far always foundered on what has been described as the freedom fighter problem—one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In the past, that problem most obviously preoccupied the UN in respect of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Israeli occupation since the '67 war, and so on.
	The high-level working group made a very persuasive point. It said that there should be some international norms, and it approached the issue not from the political basis of the action that might be carried out by civilian or non-state combatants, but according to the type of action that is acceptable. It said that it does not matter what the cause is—deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. That is the basis on which it produced the wording that I have used in my amendment.
	There are two reasons to commend this definition to the House today. First, although it is not an intergovernmental agreement, it did come from a legitimate international process set up under the auspices of the UN. Secondly, it deals with the problem that this House has been wrestling with for the past few days, and for that reason it is to be greatly preferred, in dealing with the offences under consideration, to the Government's definition. Any Member of this House should be prepared to argue with their constituents that deliberately setting out to kill civilians and non-combatants—be it in Burma, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine or any future trouble spot—is wrong, no matter what the history, grievance or repression. That is why the wording of my amendment has been drawn directly from the working group report.
	I acknowledge that my amendment is not perfect. First, it should certainly apply to clause 21—the proscription clause—which was discussed earlier. Secondly, a number of colleagues have raised with me the fair criticism that we cannot appear to endorse attacks by terrorist groups on British troops, or attacks on those of our allies with whom British troops may be serving, for example, under UN mandate or under the auspices of NATO, as in the Kosovan war. That is an issue, but it is perfectly clear—I have examined it in some detail—that there are a number of ways in which we could bring within the terms of this Bill such attacks on British troops and other troops serving the UN.
	It is true that some extremely unpleasant—and, indeed, evil—acts that might take place around the world would not be covered by the definition in my amendment. We should recognise that openly as a problem, but the debate has shown that a much bigger problem exists with the way that terrorism is defined for the purposes of clauses 1 and 17. That definition is so broad that it encompasses every act of political violence, even the most trivial.
	I see no way to avoid the truth that the House will have to come to a compromise in this matter. We must find a compromise between the all-embracing definition, which throws up huge problems, and a definition that excludes some matters that there is no doubt that all hon. Members oppose.

Children's Hospices

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I join him in commending the work done by many people who put themselves out no matter what the weather, and who work hard to raise much-needed money from communities that want those services.
	Given the lack of funding, one might wonder whether the Government genuinely accept the need for children's hospices. The national service framework, however, states:
	"Palliative care services can include short-term breaks, counselling, family support services, pain management and symptom control."
	Those services, the framework states, should be
	"easily accessible, timely and in the setting of the family's choice."
	It goes on to say that co-ordination and close liaison between agencies, including children's hospices, is thus essential. There is therefore strong Government commitment, which has been utterly ignored by PCTs.
	As for adult palliative care commitments by the Government, in the Labour election manifesto we gave a commitment to increase funding for palliative care, but that does not extend to children. We have the perverse situation at the moment whereby a 17-year-old with cancer is not deemed suitable to fund, whereas an adult is. Can we really be in a position to say that a child under 18 cannot be funded to die with all the support that a hospice can give, whereas a young person over 18 can have funded support? Does the Minister not agree that our manifesto commitment should cover children as well as adults?
	I am not, as the Minister might think, standing here asking for unlimited funding for all children's hospices, despite the Government recognising that there is no upper limit on the money that could be available, but I am standing here asking for fairness. It is quite simply shameful that PCTs can decide who to talk to and who to fund, and yet pay no heed either to what the Government are asking them to do with taxpayers' money, or to those taxpayers themselves.
	The Government have previously said that they cannot blanket fund all the costs of running children's hospices. But, again, that is not what I am asking for. The cost of running all the services, using my example of Treetops, is around £4,000 a day, a figure that I believe is comparable across the country, and yet the cost of medical care for each child is just £240 a night. Is it really too much to ask the NHS to pay for medical care? Is not that part of its remit?
	In some parts of the country, PCTs are at least going some way towards meeting their obligations to the communities that they serve by providing up to 10 per cent. of running costs for some hospices. But I am looking for a directive from the Government to primary care trusts, not asking them to perhaps think about it and if they cannot be bothered even to reply to letters, not to worry, but ordering them to instigate a process whereby PCTs must passport the medical costs of children using hospices to the hospice in question.
	To return to Treetops, let us take the example of a wonderful little girl who was telling me recently all about her visit to see "Disney on Ice". If she chooses, with her parents, to go to a hospice for respite care, the cost of the medical element should be met by the PCT covering the area where she lives. It does not need to be complicated; it just needs to happen. Where is the NHS free at the point of need for our children?
	I urge the Government, through the Minister, first to widen the scope of additional palliative care funding to include children; secondly, to put in place a process that will force PCTs to engage properly with children's hospices in accordance with the national service framework; and thirdly, to put in place a process that forces PCTs to commission properly children's hospice services in a manner that passports the funding for medical care.
	Before I close, I again pay tribute to everybody within the children's hospice movement and the caring public who support them.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) for instigating today's debate. I must congratulate him on his focus upon the work of children's hospices—hospices that make such a difference to the lives of his constituents. I am shortly to visit his constituency, and I am looking forward to meeting some of the people about whom he spoke tonight. In particular, I congratulate him on his work with the Donna Louise trust's Treetops children's hospice, based in his constituency, and congratulate him too on his work to launch its Funding for Life campaign. Other hon. Members will have an equal interest in their own children's hospice and will want to hear what the Government have been doing to ensure that these and other support services grow and thrive.
	If the House will permit me, I should like first to set out the seven steps that the Government have taken since 1997 to weave a web of care around the protection and care of children. Since 1997, there has been a transformation in the understanding of the needs of children with life threatening illness and their families.
	Step one was the Department's immediate commendation of a report by the Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families. That was closely followed by the second step, which was the NHS Executive guidance in 1998 which drew together the lessons learnt during a series of projects providing a range of care to families.
	Also in 1998, step three, a team headed by the Treasury invited applications to establish Diana children's community nursing teams throughout the country to build upon the work undertaken during the pilot project programme, and to blaze a trail for the development of home care for children with life-threatening illnesses. Additional funding of nearly £1.5 million for England was provided by the Treasury enabling eight Diana children's community nursing teams to be introduced in England during 1999.
	Step four occurred in 1998, when the Association of Children's Hospices was registered as a charity to promote the interests of the children's hospice movement and to develop public awareness and support for children's hospices and paediatric palliative care. The Department of Health has worked closely with the association since then to develop a better understanding of the issues. In particular, it commissioned the association to provide a quality assurance package to enhance the quality of care provided by children's hospice services.
	Step five occurred in 2000, when we started discussion with the New Opportunities Fund, the Department for Culture, Media and Sports and voluntary organisations to promote palliative care services for children. That resulted in the 2003 NOF awards, in which more than £45 million was awarded to 135 projects, including 71 awards to home-based palliative care teams.

Liam Byrne: I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend in his constituency.
	The guidance will set out a service model, describe the elements that should be present in the services that are commissioned and give practical examples of approaches to providing children and young people with the services. It will detail the role that we expect commissioners to play in ensuring that they commission the right services in the right place at the right time.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the local NHS receives record funding. There is no ceiling on the money that it can give to children's hospices, but the funding must be co-ordinated. Hospices must not be trapped in a paper chase or, worse, at the end of a telephone, with no reply. The NHS and the local children's hospice sector have asked for guidance on important matters, and I am pleased that we can assist them through the publication of the guide. On publication, I shall ensure that copies are placed in the Library.
	The second step that we must take is ensuring that specialist commissioning is much sharper. My noble Friend Lord Warner made a ministerial statement on Wednesday 19 October announcing a review of NHS specialist services. A new taskforce will be headed by Scotland's former chief medical officer to investigate how the NHS currently commissions specialist services and consider ways in which to tighten those commissioning arrangements so that there is much greater consistency throughout the NHS. I undertake to ensure that the review is alerted to the specific needs of children's hospices.
	I want briefly to consider resources. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the need to extend to children our manifesto commitment to provide funding for end-of-life care for adults. With the agreement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I confirm that we will extend the pledge to care for children and young people with life-threatening conditions. I will make further announcements to the House as soon as possible.
	The outcome of the Department's White Paper "Your health, your care, your say" will be taken into account as we discharge our commitment. Ministers have held meetings with the national cancer director and officials to discuss how best to effect the commitment. Ministers have also met key voluntary sector organisations and the all-party group on hospice and palliative care.
	I pay tribute to the many Members of Parliament who have worked so hard for so long on behalf of hospices and palliative care services. Hospices make an invaluable contribution to the mix of services that children and young people who have life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses need. As well as providing financial resources to the NHS, we give guidance to the commissioners of services and to hospices through the Association of Children's Hospices toolkit.
	I am delighted that the Association of Children's Hospices, which is the umbrella organisation for voluntary children's hospices, has today agreed to undertake a joint launch with the Department of Health on 29 November of the toolkit on how children's hospices work and the Department's new guidance on commissioning. It will be hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), and I shall ensure that hon. Members are alerted because several regional events to bring local hospices together will take place after the launch.

Adam Afriyie: I simply want to commend the Under-Secretary on his commitment to the funding for children's hospices, which are important to us all.

CORRECTION

2 November 2005: in column 883, Division No. 74, in the Ayes insert "Cohen, Harry".